There are about 7.8 billion people inhabiting this planet. That, to some, is way too many. By 6.3 billion too many. Why not cut that number to 1.5 billion? That, some say, would be the ideal number.
Who are those some who say so?
Bill and Melinda Gates, that’s who. It is their foundation’s publicly stated objective.
How did they arrive at these numbers? Here’s how: the Gates Foundation claims that they’re not out to kill people. Their goal is noble: they want to save the planet’s climate.
From people, of course.
The only way to achieve such drop in the number of humans within the Gates couple’s (they are no longer family) lifespan would be by genocide.
So far as their own propaganda is concerned, saving the climate while killing such numbers of people to achieve it is more than worth it.
That the climate change in and of itself is a thus far unproven invention matters not. That the ideology moves from warming to new ice age with the regularity of solar cycles matters not, either.
In the simplest of expressions: that the climate change is one of the most transparent lies making rounds these days can hardly be more obvious. Its proponents must have noticed, too: we no longer have warming or cooling. We have change, and that should suffice.
Putting face to digits
To understand the extent of the killing fields planned for our planet, it might be useful to analyse the numbers a bit.
Let’s begin with the 7.8 billion. That number equals 100 per cent of humans.
Out of that number 11 people live in Europe, five in North America (who would have guessed?), nine reside in South America, 15 live in Africa, and a full 60 per cent of all humans live in Asia.
Another angle: 49 per cent of people worldwide live in the country, while 51 per cent are city dwellers.
How about the communications technology?
Those answers exist, too: three quarters (yes, 75 per cent!) of humans own and use cellular telephones in some shape or form. One quarter survive without such gadgets. It is irrelevant for this story to analyse how many haven’t purchased this newish technology on purpose (they like being left alone), how many live in regions with no signal available, how many are too illiterate to even grasp the idea, and how many are too poor to afford these implements.
Speaking of communications, only 30 per cent of humans have access to the Internet, while the other 70 per cent are left out. We don’t know how many of the 70 per cent who are missing out do so on purpose (they like being left alone), how many live in regions with no signal available, how many are too illiterate to even grasp the idea, and how many are too poor to afford implements needed to connect, from computing devices all the way to modems.
Another indicator to explain why humans can be such easy prey to charlatans claiming mass murder will save us all: only seven per cent of humans have obtained university education, and that is based on both undergraduate and graduate studies.
You do the math.
Speaking of education, the figures look better (somewhat but, considering this is the 21st century, not too overwhelming, either): 83 per cent of people know how to read. That does not mean that those same number know how to write, by the way.
In any case, illiteracy at a 17 percentage points’ level is not much to write home about.
Numbers dealing with religion may not sound too relevant in this context. Still, they’re worth mentioning, if only in passing: Christians (Greco-Roman, Greek, orthodox, Protestant, you name them, Christians form 33 per cent of humanity, 22 per cent are Muslim, Hinduists are next with 14 per cent, while Buddhists count for seven per cent of people adhering to organised religions.
A full dozen (12 per cent) claim membership in other organised religions, and another dozen are Atheist.
Please note that these numbers are not dealing with faith. They only deal with adherence to or membership in organised religion.
Lifespans matter, too
A few actuary facts of life: just above one quarter of people (26 per cent) do not live beyond their 14th year, two thirds (66 per cent) pass away between the ages of 14 and 64, and only eight per cent survive their 65th year.
A brief explanation: actuary statistics involve management of risks and uncertainties, and if anything is uncertain, it’s our life: one can be hit by a falling icicle, and there you go.
To finish the numbers game on a realistic note: bringing the number of humans inhabiting this planet from its existing 7.8 billion to 1.5 billion means getting rid (read: killing) of 6.3 billion people. It means killing 80.769230769231 per cent of today’s number of people. To make this number easier to understand: out of each 100 people living today fewer than 20 would survive, should the Great Reset gang get its way.
The Gates Foundation is outspoken about their goal, and so is the World Economic Forum, with its 4th industrial revolution plan, one that would introduce what American economist Martin Armstrong calls socialistic feudalism. Fewer people will be needed to serve the elite of the elites: what have we got artificial intelligence (AI) for, right?
The Soros Open Societies’ call for one world government fits into all of this quite neatly: robots will do most of the administrating. Why bother with living bureaucrats? One set will be more than enough.
Not really. Remember the number of prognoses many pooh-poohed as conspiracy theories? Their lifespans turned out to be between six weeks and six months. After that, despite official assurances to the contrary, they would become reality (mask mandates, vaccination mandates).
There exists no reason for this one not to follow suit. That’s what the entire artificial pandemic fear is all about, after all.